I found the results generally comparable. Marketers have long summarized rating scale data by using the percentage of responses that select the most favorable response which before the web used to mean checking a box on paper. Tomer Sharon breathed new life into a rarely used metric that was proposed in the s when hypertext systems were coming of age. How much faith should we have in such a small, hardly representative sample?
To find out, we replicated the study using 73 new videos from US adults on several popular websites and apps. We found the original findability thresholds were in fact, a reasonable proxy for getting lost.
The rationale behind designating responses of 0 to 6 as detractors on the point Likelihood to Recommend item used for the NPS is that these respondents will be most likely to spread negative word of mouth. In our independent analysis we were able to corroborate this finding. Jared Spool has urged thousands of UX designers to reject the Net Promoter Score and instead has advocated for a lesser known item branding questionnaire, the CE Curiously, one of the items is actually the same one used in the Net Promoter Score.
In fact, we found the point LTR item actually performed as well as or better than the CE11 at differentiating between website experiences. Suggestions: This may be a case of using a valid measure Gallup validated the CE11 in the wrong context diagnosing problems in an experience.
Any measure that is high stakes like NPS , satisfaction, quarterly numbers, or even audited financial reports increases the incentive for gaming. The original validation data on the SUS came from a relatively small sample and consequently offered little insight into its factor structure. Blaming the protocol of the replication study rather than reexamining the original results can easily dismiss any discrepancies from the original findings.
For this reason, controversial studies can stand for years without retraction, even with multiple failed validation studies. Operating in a highly competitive publish or perish environment, new researchers are presented with a quandary here. Research Supervisors encourage the use of replication studies to both provide a valuable contribution of validation to science, and to expose their students to multiple research methodologies.
However, those new researchers are eager to build their academic track records and therefore want to do research that will get published. Even the best scientists make mistakes , and replication studies provide a valuable contribution in catching such mistakes before flawed studies get too widely dispersed. No one disputes the need for validation, especially in this climate of highly competitive research that is expected to produce maximum results as quickly as possible.
The less chance a proposed study has of being published in a prestigious journal, the less likely it is that the study will receive funding. The days of open access journals and pay-for-print journals that charge article processing fees APFs , have rapidly expanded the number of journals out there. As readers, we cannot know for sure whether researchers have misrepresented or lied about their findings, but we can always ask whether the paper gives us enough detail to be able to replicate the research.
If the research is replicable, then any false conclusions can eventually be shown to be wrong. External sources Other sources Pre-appraised research Critical appraisal tools. Useful information Sampling methods Replicability Confounders Asking the right questions Are some types of evidence better than others? Other researchers might want to replicate the same study with younger smokers to see if they reach the same result. When studies are replicated and achieve the same or similar results as the original study, it gives greater validity to the findings.
When conducting a study or experiment , it is essential to have clearly defined operational definitions. In other words, what is the study attempting to measure? When replicating earlier researchers, experimenters will follow the same procedures but with a different group of participants.
So what happens if the original results cannot be reproduced? Does that mean that the experimenters conducted bad research or that, even worse, they lied or fabricated their data? In many cases, non-replicated research is caused by differences in the participants or in other extraneous variables that might influence the results of an experiment. For example, minor differences in things like the way questions are presented, the weather, or even the time of day the study is conducted might have an unexpected impact on the results of an experiment.
Researchers might strive to perfectly reproduce the original study, but variations are expected and often impossible to avoid.
In , a group of researchers published the results of their five-year effort to replicate different experimental studies previously published in three top psychology journals.
The results were less than stellar. As one might expect, these dismal findings caused quite a stir. So why are psychology results so difficult to replicate? Writing for The Guardian , John Ioannidis suggested that there are a number of reasons why this might happen, including competition for research funds and the powerful pressure to obtain significant results.
There is little incentive to retest, so many results obtained purely by chance are simply accepted without further research or scrutiny.
0コメント